A recent decision from the British Columbia Court of Appeal examined how a court-ordered sale should proceed when one co-owner wants to remain in a jointly owned home, and the other owners want to receive their share of the property’s value.
The real estate dispute centred on whether an earlier court order gave the resident co-owner a right of first refusal. In other words, did she have the right to match or exceed an acceptable offer from an outside buyer?
The Court of Appeal concluded that she did. It allowed the appeal and directed that the property be sold to the resident co-owner based on the unconditional offer she made after learning of the third-party offer.
Three Siblings Inherit a West Vancouver Home
The property at issue in Purssell v. Purssell was a residential home in West Vancouver that had previously belonged to the parties’ parents. Three siblings inherited equal interests in the property after their father died in 2012.
Each sibling held an undivided one-third interest as a tenant in common. One sibling had lived in the home since 2011, and the parties had entered into a co-ownership agreement.
Over time, the two non-resident siblings wanted to sell the property and recover their equity. The resident sibling wanted to purchase their interests and continue living in the home. Despite several mediation sessions, the siblings could not agree on the terms of a sale.
The Application for a Court-Ordered Sale
The two non-resident owners applied under British Columbia’s Partition of Property Act for an order requiring the property to be sold. They also requested that one of them receive sole conduct of the sale.
The resident owner opposed that request and sought an order allowing her to purchase the property instead. However, the offers she had previously delivered did not include a specific sale price. She proposed that an appraisal could be obtained and that the Court could determine the price if the parties remained unable to agree.
The original proceeding resulted in an order that the property be sold on the open market. One of the non-resident owners received sole conduct of the sale.
A Right of First Refusal Enters the Discussion
During the original hearing, the parties discussed whether the resident owner should receive a right of first refusal if the property was listed for sale.
A right of first refusal generally gives a person the opportunity to purchase property on terms that match or exceed an acceptable third-party offer. The non-resident owners did not oppose such a right. Their position was that it could balance the competing interests involved in the dispute.
The open market would establish the property’s value, allowing the non-resident owners to pursue the highest and best price. At the same time, the resident owner would have an opportunity to remain in the property by matching or exceeding an outside offer.
What the Original Sale Order Said
The reasons accompanying the original order stated that the resident owner’s wish to remain in the home could be accommodated through a right of first refusal.
The entered order did not use that exact phrase. Instead, it stated that any party could bid or make an offer to purchase the property, subject to court approval or the parties’ agreement. It added that this included an offer by a party to “meet or exceed” an offer made by a third party on the open market.
That added wording later became the central issue in the appeal. The parties disagreed about whether it merely permitted the resident owner to submit another offer or whether it created an enforceable right to match an acceptable third-party offer.
The Property Was Listed for Sale for $3.2 Million
The property was listed in February 2026 for approximately $3.288 million. The listing price was reduced several times, eventually reaching approximately $2.788 million in April 2026.
The resident owner submitted multiple offers, but none were accepted. In May 2026, the owner with conduct of the sale accepted a third-party offer of $2.601 million, subject to the agreement of the owners or court approval.
After receiving a copy of the accepted offer, the resident owner submitted an unconditional offer of $2.604 million. Her offer was $3,000 higher than the third-party offer and was also subject to the agreement of the parties or court approval. The outside buyer later increased his offer. Both prospective purchasers then submitted additional bids, with each attempting to exceed the other’s proposed price.
The Initial Sale Approval Favoured the Outside Buyer
The matter returned to court for approval of the proposed sale. The resident owner argued that the previous order gave her a right of first refusal and that she had exercised it by submitting an unconditional offer above the accepted third-party price.
The chambers judge disagreed. The judge concluded that the earlier order did not create a true right of first refusal. In that interpretation, the resident owner was permitted to make an offer, but the owner with conduct of the sale was not required to accept it.
The sale to the third-party purchaser was approved at the increased price of $2.611 million. The chambers judge found that the sale process had been conducted in a businesslike manner and that the proposed transaction was provident in the circumstances.
How Courts Interpret Previous Orders
The Court of Appeal explained that interpreting a court order requires more than reading its operative words in isolation.
A court must consider the pleadings, the language of the order and the circumstances in which the order was made. The reasons for judgment may be particularly important because they can reveal the objective meaning and intended operation of the order.
This contextual approach applies even where the wording of an order initially appears clear. The Court of Appeal found that the chambers judge had not applied that approach properly.
The Added Words Had to Mean Something
The original form of order requested by the non-resident owners already permitted any party to bid or make an offer for the property. However, the order that was actually granted went further. It specifically referred to a party making an offer to meet or exceed a third-party offer received on the open market.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the additional language had to be given meaning. Interpreting it as merely allowing another offer would add nothing to the broader permission that already existed.
The reasons accompanying the order also expressly connected the resident owner’s desire to remain in the home with the granting of a right of first refusal. In the Court’s view, this context supported the conclusion that the order created such a right.
Balancing Fair Market Value and Continued Ownership
The Court viewed the right of first refusal as a way to reconcile the interests of all three owners. The non-resident owners wanted to liquidate their interests at a price established through the open market. The resident owner wanted to retain the home and had indicated that she was prepared to pay fair market value.
Granting one owner conduct of the public sale allowed the property to be marketed and exposed to outside purchasers. The right of first refusal then gave the resident owner an opportunity to meet or exceed a price that the selling owners had already found acceptable.
The Court also noted that the non-resident owners themselves had proposed the right of first refusal during the original hearing as an appropriate way to balance the parties’ interests.
The Resident Owner Validly Exercised the Right of First Refusal
The Court of Appeal concluded that the original order gave the resident owner a right of first refusal. That right was exercised when she submitted an unconditional offer of $2.604 million after the third-party offer of $2.601 million had been accepted. Her offer was higher and was delivered on terms that responded directly to the accepted outside offer.
According to the Court, that should have ended the bidding process. Later offers from the outside purchaser should not have been considered or accepted.
The appeal was therefore allowed. The previous approval order was varied so that the property would be sold to the resident owner under her May 28, 2026 offer.
Clear Sale Terms Matter in Co-Ownership Disputes
The decision illustrates how important the precise wording and surrounding context of a court order can become during a forced or court-supervised property sale.
Terms addressing conduct of sale, bidding rights, disclosure of third-party offers, matching opportunities, approval requirements and completion dates may affect how the transaction unfolds. Even where one co-owner has sole conduct of the sale, that authority may remain subject to specific rights granted to another owner.
The case also demonstrates that reasons for judgment may help determine what an order objectively means. The operative wording cannot always be interpreted separately from the submissions, factual background and balancing of interests that led to the order.
Dealing With a Real Estate Co-Ownership Dispute in B.C.? Contact CM Lawyers in Vernon, Salmon Arm, Enderby and Abbotsford
Co-ownership disputes can raise questions about partition and sale proceedings, rights of first refusal, conduct of sale, property valuation and the enforcement or interpretation of court orders.
The real estate litigation team at CM Lawyers assists property owners, co-owners, purchasers and other parties with real estate disputes in Vernon, Salmon Arm, Enderby, Abbotsford, and across B.C. Contact our firm online or call (250) 308-0338 to discuss your residential or commercial property dispute.